… that James Webb could prove or disprove within a month and a half when he takes the images of the JWST Ultra Deep Field or at most within a year, given that his first year will be devoted to the study of deep space
The way we measure the age of the universe is simply that we measure the age of the farthest visible object, at least with electromagnetic radiation, it is the cosmic microwave background, although the cosmic neutrino background and early gravitational waves are supposed to be a oldest fraction of a second. of age, which for the present discussion is irrelevant because it is almost impossible to obtain data from them.
In either case, the age of the universe is the time it takes for light from that farthest object to reach our planet, assuming the speed of light is constant.
The composition in metals of the most distant and therefore old stars that the jwst will be able to see is different from that of the current stars because the oldest were hydrogen and helium and lithium that were created in the big bang and little else because heavier atoms are created in nuclear fusion processes.
The most distant and therefore old galaxies are smaller because they did not have time to grow.
The universe grew in continuous and slow processes.
What I have just exposed is the standard hypothesis.
Now I present my theory.
(1) The universe was created not in slow and continuous processes but in rapidly cataclysmic processes in the first 5% of its age.
(2) The fact that the universe formed so fast will puzzle scientists and to recover their theory of the universe that is created slowly they will say that the speed of light has been increasing until now and that therefore the age of the universe is greater which we believed, although this hypothesis will be proven false if (1) is verified.
(3) The composition of the most distant and therefore ancient stars is the same as that of the current ones, because the metals were formed in that first 5% of the age of the universe.
(4) The oldest galaxies are the same in shape and size as the current ones because they were born in the first 5% of the age of the universe and since then they have hardly changed, except that they moved away due to the expansion of the universe.
This is my hypothesis and I bet my honor as a person who writes on the internet, that all my predictions are fulfilled.
The test of honor is that you accept the result when the James Webb Telescope gives evidence confirming what all the evidence already from everywhere else has been telling us all along. Will you then be able to accept what God has already been telling us in all the data He has been sending us all this time. Or will you come up with some new excuse to refuse to see what He shows us, refuse to hear what God tells us, and refuse to understand what God has given us in all the evidence we have been given before the James Webb Telescope?
It will hardly be the first time. Scientists are constantly scrambling to match theory to what the observations show us. It is often quite different from what they expect. And they relish such new information because it gives them work to do and provides opportunities for new people to make a name for themselves. The last thing they want is the same old same old telling them nothing new and giving them no means to address unanswered questions or not finding new questions to investigate.
First of all we don’t measure stars for this but clouds of gas in other galaxies. So far the data agrees with theory of the big bang. But the data points are admittedly few (only for closer galaxies) and we hope to get many more data points from the James Webb Telescope.
